Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

hume85 wrote:Why is no one bringing up crime and the likelihood of disasters (man made and natural)? Is it because none of you take these factors as seriously as weather, transportation, and culture? Is it that the two cities are a wash in these regards? Or something else entirely?

They're both in areas that aren't susceptible to natural disaster (hurricanes, etc).

Though much has been made of Chicago's murder rate, it was slightly lower per-capita than DC's last year. In terms of overall violent crime, both cities are around the middle of the pack, between Seattle/Portland at one end and Baltimore/Detroit on the other. Chicago's overall violent crime rate is a little lower than DC's, comparable to Houston.

hume85 wrote:Why is no one bringing up crime and the likelihood of disasters (man made and natural)? Is it because none of you take these factors as seriously as weather, transportation, and culture? Is it that the two cities are a wash in these regards? Or something else entirely?

They're both in areas that aren't susceptible to natural disaster (hurricanes, etc).

Though much has been made of Chicago's murder rate, it was slightly lower per-capita than DC's last year. In terms of overall violent crime, both cities are around the middle of the pack, between Seattle/Portland at one end and Baltimore/Detroit on the other. Chicago's overall violent crime rate is a little lower than DC's, comparable to Houston.

Can you very nearly avoid violent crime in either city by living in certain neighborhoods? Are these neighborhoods within a short commute of most law offices?

hume85 wrote:Why is no one bringing up crime and the likelihood of disasters (man made and natural)? Is it because none of you take these factors as seriously as weather, transportation, and culture? Is it that the two cities are a wash in these regards? Or something else entirely?

They're both in areas that aren't susceptible to natural disaster (hurricanes, etc).

Though much has been made of Chicago's murder rate, it was slightly lower per-capita than DC's last year. In terms of overall violent crime, both cities are around the middle of the pack, between Seattle/Portland at one end and Baltimore/Detroit on the other. Chicago's overall violent crime rate is a little lower than DC's, comparable to Houston.

Can you very nearly avoid violent crime in either city by living in certain neighborhoods? Are these neighborhoods within a short commute of most law offices?

hume85 wrote:Why is no one bringing up crime and the likelihood of disasters (man made and natural)? Is it because none of you take these factors as seriously as weather, transportation, and culture? Is it that the two cities are a wash in these regards? Or something else entirely?

They're both in areas that aren't susceptible to natural disaster (hurricanes, etc).

Though much has been made of Chicago's murder rate, it was slightly lower per-capita than DC's last year. In terms of overall violent crime, both cities are around the middle of the pack, between Seattle/Portland at one end and Baltimore/Detroit on the other. Chicago's overall violent crime rate is a little lower than DC's, comparable to Houston.

Can you very nearly avoid violent crime in either city by living in certain neighborhoods? Are these neighborhoods within a short commute of most law offices?

EdgarWinter wrote:Thesealocust your argument would make sense if it weren't for the extremely well-supported idea that major market areas are self-perpetuating by virtue of the economic benefits of locating next to masses of consumers and useful suppliers.

Chicago was built for reasons that might not matter much today, but hugeness is its own reason for existence. Chicago is probs too big to fail anytime soon.

Also DC transportation sucks if you aren't lucky enough to live on a subway stop (and there aren't nearly enough stops). It's not even close.

In the 50 year time frame, Chicago is well-placed. Global warming will cause SoCal and Arizona to dry up. San Francisco and Portland/Seattle will be overrun by invaders from SoCal. Texas will be eaten alive by West Nile. Boston, New York, and DC will be under water due to rising sea levels. Chicago and Toronto will be sitting pretty next to the largest source of fresh water in the world. Even Detroit will not suck.

Apocalyptic scenarios? I think this thread is done.

Fresh water could be an issue for some cities in the future and Chicago is pretty well set there. I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago eventually surpasses LA to reclaim its spot as the second largest city in the U.S as a lack of freshwater kills LA's growth.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_111186.html

EdgarWinter wrote:Thesealocust your argument would make sense if it weren't for the extremely well-supported idea that major market areas are self-perpetuating by virtue of the economic benefits of locating next to masses of consumers and useful suppliers.

Chicago was built for reasons that might not matter much today, but hugeness is its own reason for existence. Chicago is probs too big to fail anytime soon.

Also DC transportation sucks if you aren't lucky enough to live on a subway stop (and there aren't nearly enough stops). It's not even close.

In the 50 year time frame, Chicago is well-placed. Global warming will cause SoCal and Arizona to dry up. San Francisco and Portland/Seattle will be overrun by invaders from SoCal. Texas will be eaten alive by West Nile. Boston, New York, and DC will be under water due to rising sea levels. Chicago and Toronto will be sitting pretty next to the largest source of fresh water in the world. Even Detroit will not suck.

Apocalyptic scenarios? I think this thread is done.

Fresh water could be an issue for some cities in the future and Chicago is pretty well set there. I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago eventually surpasses LA to reclaim its spot as the second largest city in the U.S as a lack of freshwater kills LA's growth.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_111186.html

Arizona and Nevada are the ones that are really screwed. They're not going to win the water battles with LA.

It's been a long time coming, but irrigating the southwest has proven to be a Big Government mistake. It's a culture of dependency. You give Tuscon and Phoenix water handouts, and they become dependent on them. Instead of finding their own water, they just wait for Uncle Sam's Army Corps of Engineers to bring them some more. We should end water welfare for the southwest.

shock259 wrote:How does NYC factor into this discussion? Guessing it'll be above DC, but lower than Chicago.

What say you, TLS?

I'd pick NYC over both (and did; didn't even apply to DC/Chicago), but I'm from the area so I'm incredibly biased. Heck, I'd even pick Philly over DC/Chicago; but again that's part of personal preference/familiarity/proximity to "home".